Criticisms of Relativity Theory

Criticism of the Foundations of the Relativity Theory
Dr. Sergey N. Arteha (bio),
Deputy Chief of Department of the Space Research Institute,
Russian Academy of Sciences

PDF Full Text Link (HTML Version) (Archive)

  “ Contrary to the artificially maintained judgement, that modern physics rests upon some well-verified fundamental theories, too frequently the ad hoc hypotheses appear (for a certain particular phenomenon), as well as science-like adjustments of calculations to the 'required result', similarly to students’ peeping at an a priori known answer to the task. The predictive force of fundamental theories in applications occurs to be close to zero (contrary to allegations of 'showman from science'). ”

Antirelativitic Library

Dr. Sergey N. Arteha has collected a number of anti-relativity works in his Antirelativistic Library

Quotes

Walter Babin of the The General Science Journal says:

  “ The failure of leading physics journals to accept papers critical of theories such as relativity, amounts to a particularly insidious form of censorship. It is one of the principle reasons for 100 years of stagnation in theoretical physics. ”

Dr. Vadim A.Zhmud (bio) at Novosibirsk State Technical University tells us:

  “ RT is erroneous: there exist conclusive disproofs of RT, but a basis for RT is absent. There appear some new possibilities for progress in physics. RT brings a prejudice to Science, but the refute from RT can present adequate predictions. ”

Dr. Arkadiusz Jadczyk (bio) at the International Institute of Mathematical Physics, France, comments:

  “ While it is the fact that unconventional and interesting ideas (like those of Lavrentev, Eganova, Santilli,Shipov) are rejected and/or ignored by the institutionalized science, it is also true that the same unconventional scientists often reject or ignore offers for the help from their colleagues that may like to criticize some of the elements of their theories. This creates a vicious cycle and the spooks, politicians, and the military, who want to keep any real discovery in secret, and "normal scientists" in confusion ”

Professor Ruggero Maria Santilli, Ph.D. (bio) states:

  “ "Curved space" exists only in the imagination of the proponents of relativity theory. ”

Lutz Kayser

Rocket pioneer Lutz Kayser provides the following:

Falsification of Einstein Theory of Relativity
Professor Lutz Kayser, Director
Pacific Institute of Physics and Space Technology

Full Text Link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1501.0226v1.pdf

  “ We who sat in the first year physics lectures remember the astonishment and exclamations of disbelief of our classmates when Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity was introduced: Postulates of constancy of velocity of light c relative to the observer and the Galilean Principle independent of velocity. It first seemed easy to understand, but the weird consequences of time dilation, length contraction, velocity and acceleration transformation, and the twin paradox were hard to believe. Then followed the explanation by the lecturer that all these consequences are counterintuitive and “this is an example why physicists should not follow intuition”! However, SR and GR are not only counterintuitive but also illogical and false. ”

Special Relativity

naturalphilosophy.org states:

  “ There have been hundreds of papers and dozens of books written on the refutation of special relativity over the last 100 years.

One such refutation is by Dr. Ricardo Carezani who shows that the concept of two or more frames of reference are redundant both mathematically and physically. ”

http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

  “ The speaker Joao Magueijo, is a Reader in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College, London and author of Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels. ”

Fizeau Experiment

From the peer-reviewed Journal of Physical Mathematics:

Optical Fizeau Experiment with Moving Water is Explained without Fresnel's Hypothesis and Contradicts Special Relativity
Gennadiy S and Vitali S

Direct Link to Paper

Abstract: "Fizeau experiment actually proves not partial, as the special relativity asserts, but complete dragging of the light by moving medium. The decrease of the fringe shift in the Fizeau's two-beam interferometer is explained not with wrong Fresnel's aether drag hypothesis but with the phase deviations arising in the interfering beams because of Doppler shift of the frequencies. Fizeau experiment does not prove but, on the contrary, refutes Einstein's theory of relativity."

Louis Essen

British physicist Dr. Louis Essen (bio) has spent a lifetime working at the NPL on the measurement of time and frequency. He built the first caesium clock in 1955 and determined the velocity of light by cavity resonator, in the process showing that Michelson's value was 17km/s low. In 1959, he was awarded the Popov Gold Medal of the USSR Academy of Sciences and also the OBE. Dr. Essen was a noted critic of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.

Special Relativity: A Critical Analysis

In his Special Relativity: A Critical Analysis, Dr. Essen writes:

  “ It is a common view that the special theory of relativity is well supported by experimental evidence, although this may not be true of the general theory. For example, W Heisenberg (1958) stresses the experimental support and concludes that in consequence the theory belongs to the firm foundations of modern physics and cannot be disputed. It may be surprising, therefore, to find that a more critical examination of the experiments and experimental conditions suggests that there is no experimental support for the theory....The experiments of Michelson-Morley type cannot be taken as supporting the theory, because the theory was developed in order to explain the null result that was obtained. ”

Dr. Essen concludes that   “ A critical examination of Einstein’s papers reveals that in the course of thought–experiments he makes implicit assumptions that are additional and contrary to his two initial principles. ”

Relativity: Joke or a Swindle?

From Dr. Essen's article Relativity: Joke or a Swindle? in Electronics & Wireless World we read:

Louis Essen re-states his view that Einstein's theory of relativity contains basic and fatal flaws.

  “ Claims frequently made that the theory is supported by experimental evidence do not withstand a close scrutiny.

...Why have scientists accepted a theory which contains obvious errors and lacks any genuine experimental support? It is a difficult question, but a number of reasons can be suggested. There is first the ambiguous language used by Einstein and the nature of his errors. Units of measurements, though of fundamental importance, are seldom discussed outside specialist circles and the errors in clock comparisons are hidden away in the thought experiments.

Einstein's use of a thought experiment, together with his ignorance of experimental techniques, gave a result which fooled himself and generations of scientists.

Then there is the prestige of its advocates. Eddington had the full support of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Royal Society and scientific establishments throughout the world. Taking their cue from scientists, important people in other walks of life referred to it as an outstanding achievement of the human intellect. Another powerful reason for its acceptance was suggested to me by a former president of the Royal Society. He confessed that he did not understand the theory himself, not being an expert in the subject, but he thought it must be right because he had found it so useful. This is a very important requirement in any theory but it does not follow that errors in it should be ignored.

Insofar as the theory is thought to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment I am inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle ”

Relativity and Time Signals

In October of 1978 Essen published a paper titled Relativity and Time Signals in the Wireless World journal. Dr. Essen told us:

  “ the comparison of distant clocks by radio is now a precise and well known technique. This was not the case in 1905, when Einstein published his famous paper on relativity and there is some excuse for the mistakes he made in the thought- experiments he described in order to determine the relative rates of two identical clocks in uniform relative motion. But there is no excuse for their repetition in current literature. The mistakes have been exposed in published criticisms of the theory, but the criticisms have been almost completely ignored; and the continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory.

These criticisms were rejected by Nature [the most prestigious journal in science]. It could be argued that the truth will eventually prevail, but history teaches us that when a false view of nature has become firmly established it may persist for decades or even centuries. The general public is misled into believing that science is a mysterious subject which can be understood by only a few exceptionally gifted mathematicians. Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favour of dogma. Since the time of Einstein and of one of his most ardent supporters, Eddington, there has been a great increase in anti-rational thought and mysticism. ”

Essen also remarked “No one has attempted to refute my arguments, but I was warned that if I persisted I was likely to spoil my career prospects”.

See Also:

• Dr Louis Essen Inventor Of Atomic Clock Rejects Einstein’s Relativity Theory

The Farce of Physics

The Farce of Physics
Dr. Brian G Wallace

  “ There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious politicians of our time do. (...) Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in, should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes. (...) Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v. (...) I expect that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it." ”

Note: Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed so one can find stylistic imperfections, undeveloped ideas etc.

Anthony Standed

The chemist and entomologist Anthony Standen (bio) said:

  “ Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do this he had to take something else, which was the velocity of light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light occupies an extraordinary place in modern physics. It is lese-majeste’ to make any criticism of the velocity of light. It is a sacred cow within a sacred cow, and it is just about the Absolutest Absolute in the history of human thought. There is a textbook on physics which openly says, “Relativity is now accepted as a faith.” This statement, although utterly astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately only too true. ”
                  —A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, (Sheed and Ward, 1952), pp. 52-53.

Eureka Alert

A mainstream science news website Eureka Alert, a service of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, published the following:

The special theory of relativity has been disproved theoretically
A paper titled 'Challenge to the special theory of relativity' to be published on Physics Essays

International Conference on Problems of Space and Time in Natural Science

In 1991 participants of the 2nd International Conference on Problems of Space and Time in Natural Science, from the USSR, the USA, Canada, Italy, Great Britain, Germany, Brazil, Austria, Switzerland and Finland issued the following declaration:

  “ Due to prohibiting or hashing up the publications which contradict Einstein 's theory, modern theoretical physics and astrophysics have come to a crisis. We propose to give up teaching relativity theory in secondary schools, which would give time for studying the origin and development of classical methods in mechanics and physics. Teaching relativity theory in higher educational institutions ought to be accompanied by discussions of alternative approaches. ”

Relativity of Light

A book called Relativity of Light by Justin M. Jacob contains criticisms of interest:

https://relativityoflight.com/chapter-18

  “ The mathematical fix of Einstein’s Special Theory is predicated on the false premise that a propagating ray of light must always have the same absolute velocity of c with respect to every linearly moving material body, regardless of such body’s location, its different linear velocity, or its different direction of motion. This is an impossible and invalid absolute concept (Chapter 21E). For example, this result would be analogous to your automobile moving down a street at the constant speed of 30 m/s relative to the street and at the same time magically be moving at a rate of exactly 30 m/s relative to every other moving vehicle in the entire city, regardless of its location, its speed, or its direction of motion. This absolute result would, of course, be impossible (Figure 21.6). ”

Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D.

https://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue38/einstein.html

  “ For all their apparent predictive power, Einstein's relativity theories are deeply flawed, as the critical papers in this first of two Infinite Energy special "Einstein Reconsidered" issues will demonstrate formally. Einstein criticism is, of course, not new. (We are obviously not referring to Nazi-inspired, anti-Semitic tracts against relativity that were published in the 1920s, which disparaged his relativity theory as "Jewish science" or worse.) There are many sources of technical critiques of Einstein's work, such as the dissident journals Galilean Electrodynamics,¹ Physics Essays,² Apeiron,³ Journal of New Energy,⁴ etc., as well as books by thoughtful critics: Harold Aspden,⁵ Petr Beckmann,⁶ Peter and Neal Graneau,⁷ Ronald Hatch,⁸ Herbert Ives,⁹ Thomas Phipps, Jr.,¹⁰ and Franco Selleri,¹¹ to name but a few. There is even an organization, the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA),¹² which holds regional and national meetings devoted to critiquing modern physics, especially Einsteinian relativity. This community of dissidents and publications has been completely ignored by a self-satisfied Physics Establishment, which preserves its power and prestige, in part by mystifying veritable "scientific saints," such as Einstein and Stephen Hawking.

...Many may be surprised to learn that the most perceptive critics of Einstein's relativity theories employ rational methods of scientific argument and analysis; they have performed the essential mathematical treatments. It is natural that newcomers may have misgivings about these critics, because they have been bludgeoned with what have been claimed to be iron-clad proofs of SRT predictions, such as length contraction and time dilation. In truth, the experimental record contains no proof of length contraction and it has a highly muddied collection of "proofs" of time dilation per se. No, the existence of altered decay of subatomic particles such as muons does not prove time dilation, no matter how often that canard is repeated in textbooks (see, for example the critique by Cantrell). Even the famous E=mc2 formulation, supposedly one of Einstein's most original concepts, has alternative derivations, some of which were in an advanced state by the time SRT burst forth onto the scene. ”

William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.

https://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html

  “ This may come as a shock, but Einstein’s theory of relativity is not part of the design of nuclear weapons! As proof, here is an excerpt from The Los Alamos Primer: The First Lectures on How To Build an Atomic Bomb, "Section 2. Energy of Fission Process," page 7:

"Somehow the popular notion took hold long ago that Einstein’s theory of relativity, in particular his famous equation E = mc2, plays some essential role in the theory of fission. Albert Einstein had a part in alerting the United States government to the possibility of building an atomic bomb, but his theory of relativity is not required in discussing fission. The theory of fission is what physicists call a nonrelativistic theory, meaning that relativistic effects are too small to affect the dynamics of the fission process significantly."

This primer³ is a collection of lecture notes taught by Berkeley theoretician Dr. Robert Serber to the young physicists arriving at Los Alamos beginning in 1943. The purpose of Serber’s lectures was to bring the new arrivals up to speed quickly, so that the Manhattan Project could produce a "practical military weapon" in the shortest possible time. It contains a considerable amount of information on weapon design and the differential equations to be solved to calculate neutron flux. Serber explains that the energy released from the nucleus during fission is simply that of electrostatic repulsion between protons. A considerable amount of potential energy is stored by cramming the positively charged protons together in a nucleus and this is what gets released when it splits. Einstein’s famous equation is not involved.

By the time the Manhattan Project started, Einstein was in his sixties. His contribution consisted of signing a letter composed by physicist Leo Szilard and addressed to FDR. His role as scientific icon was needed to ensure that the scientists could capture the attention of the President and the War Department. Needless to say, it worked. ”

General Relativity

On the three famous tests of General Relativity see this statement from Physicist Robert Dicke (bio):

Robert Dicke and the naissance of experimental gravity physics, 1957–1967 (Archive)

  “ Dicke’s thinking about his change of direction of research is illustrated by these quotes from his 1957 Chapel Hill paper, The Experimental Basis of Einstein’s Theory (Dicke 1957a, p. 5):

"It is unfortunate to note that the situation with respect to the experimental checks of general relativity theory is not much better than it was a few years after the theory was discovered – say in 1920. This is in striking contrast to the situation with respect to quantum theory, where we have literally thousands of experimental checks.

...

Professor Wheeler has already discussed the three famous checks of general relativity; this is really very flimsy evidence on which to hang a theory.

...

It is a great challenge to the experimental physicist to try to improve this situation; to try to devise new experiments and refine old ones to give new checks on the theory. We have been accustomed to thinking that gravity can play no role in laboratory-scale experiments; that the gradients are too small, and that all gravitational effects are equivalent to a change of frame of reference. Recently I have been changing my views about this."

In the second of these quotes Dicke was referring to Wheeler’s summary comments on the classical three tests of general relativity: the orbit of the planet Mercury, the gravitational deflection of light passing near the Sun, and the gravitational redshift of light from stars. ”

GR Criticisms

• C. Y. Lo, Ph. D. in mathematics (Queen's University) and D. Sc. In physics (MIT) - On the Test of Newton's Inverse Square Law and Unification of Gravitation and Electromagnetism -- the questionable accurate gravitational constant of J. Luo

Quotes

  “ The theory of space and time no longer represent intrinsic physics ”
                  —Albert Einstein, 1920

  “ Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the physical world. ”
                  —Albert Einstein, Evolution of Physics, 1938

  “ Yet now he tried to do without any empirical facts, by pure thinking. He believed in the power of reason to guess the laws according to which God has built the world. ”
                  —Physicist Max Born, 1956

  “ I contend that the Einsteinian preference for the Principle of Relativity is based in the final count - not on scientific or empirical grounds - but on ideological premises. ”
                  —Mathematician and physicist Wolfgang Smith

See Also

• Michelson-Morley Experiment
• Sagnac Experiment
• Airy's Failure
• Aether